Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011
You realize that the pipeline never crosses tribal land, and that the feds had literally zero input on its path, yes?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Gobbeldygook
May 13, 2009
Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

gfsincere posted:

Best (worst) part is, the pipeline was originally supposed to go through Bismarck but the white people there were like "lol gtfo" and so they basically went to the government saying "ahhh, you guys don't keep treaties with NAs anyways, let us run the pipeline all through their poo poo".

And here we are.
No, the worst part is people like you parroting protester talking points.


It's not their land and it never was their land.

Civilized Fishbot posted:

Sure, but changing the Standing Rock leadership is a long-term solution to a short-term problem.

My understanding is that the Corps just contacted the tribes to try to accomplish this goal, the Standing Rock didn't respond back, and they assumed that was the end of it.

But it turns out that the Standing Rock should've responded back, because there were some important artifacts on the grounds (maybe). And the administration hosed up badly, but the ideal response to that isn't "I guess we just have to accept that we might wreck some artifacts because the paperwork wasn't filed properly." It's a huge headache for everyone now and it's the government's job to put an end to it by going and actually examining the claims being made now by the Standing Rock. And it seems obvious that, if that's going to happen, construction needs to be put on hold until then
Standing Rock mostly ignored the government's inquiries for months, but at various points did walk around and point out stuff they cared about although sometimes they were clearly just loving with the government (e.g. they dragged the Corps to graveyard that was 1.2 miles away from the proposed pipeline).

Why should we bail out the leadership? If there's no obvious consequence to electing idiots, their voters will keep electing them.

CommieGIR
Aug 22, 2006

The blue glow is a feature, not a bug


Pillbug

Gobbeldygook posted:

No, the worst part is people like you parroting protester talking points.


It's not their land and it never was their land.

Standing Rock mostly ignored the government's inquiries for months, but at various points did walk around and point out stuff they cared about although sometimes they were clearly just loving with the government (e.g. they dragged the Corps to graveyard that was 1.2 miles away from the proposed pipeline).

Why should we bail out the leadership? If there's no obvious consequence to electing idiots, their voters will keep electing them.

Cool.

Let's just ignore this:


gfsincere posted:

Best (worst) part is, the pipeline was originally supposed to go through Bismarck but the white people there were like "lol gtfo" and so they basically went to the government saying "ahhh, you guys don't keep treaties with NAs anyways, let us run the pipeline all through their poo poo".

And here we are.

Bunch of white people raise a fuss, and everyone is okay. But people that live immediately south of a planned cross for the pipe and its bring out the MRAPS.

Dr. Fraiser Chain
May 18, 2004

Redlining my shit posting machine


The pipeline was actually originally slated to be North of Bismarck but was moved for a variety of reasons including concern for contaminating Bismarck's water supply.

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/sta...8d386c933c.html

quote:

An early proposal for the Dakota Access Pipeline called for the project to cross the Missouri River north of Bismarck, but one reason that route was rejected was its potential threat to Bismarck’s water supply, documents show.

The suggestion that it was never their land is... I dunno? Weird?

Hollismason
Jun 30, 2007

Witchfinder General

You can't own land brah, I mean what poo poo that is part of the earth you can't own the earth

Gobbeldygook
May 13, 2009
Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

Goodpancakes posted:

The suggestion that it was never their land is... I dunno? Weird?
They signed a treaty with us. Some land that used to be theirs according to that treaty no longer is because we took it back by force (there is currently a billion dollar apology sitting in a government bank account for them if they would just accept it), but none of that land includes the land the pipeline runs on.

Even if it was running right through their land, tough poo poo, they agreed we could do that.

quote:

6th. They withdraw all pretence of opposition to the construction of the railroad now being built along the Platte river and westward to the Pacific ocean, and they will not in future object to the construction of railroads, wagon roads, mail stations, or other works of utility or necessity, which may be ordered or permitted by the laws of the United States. But should such roads or other works be constructed on the lands of their reservation, the government will pay the tribe whatever amount of damage may be assessed by three disinterested commissioners to be appointed by the President for that purpose, one of the said commissioners to be a chief or headman of the tribe.

Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011

CommieGIR posted:

Bunch of white people raise a fuss, and everyone is okay. But people that live immediately south of a planned cross for the pipe and its bring out the MRAPS.
I don't think anyone in Bismark tried to enter private property and physically block work on the pipeline.

CommieGIR
Aug 22, 2006

The blue glow is a feature, not a bug


Pillbug

Dead Reckoning posted:

I don't think anyone in Bismark tried to enter private property and physically block work on the pipeline.

Because it never started.

Hella Paunchy
Jul 25, 2007
More fun than a stick in the eye.

Gobbeldygook posted:

they agreed we could do that.

That's like robbing someone at gunpoint and then saying they gave you their wallet as a gift. "But officer, it isn't stealing, he said I could have it!!"

Dr. Fraiser Chain
May 18, 2004

Redlining my shit posting machine


Gobbeldygook posted:

They signed a treaty with us. Some land that used to be theirs according to that treaty no longer is because we took it back by force (there is currently a billion dollar apology sitting in a government bank account for them if they would just accept it), but none of that land includes the land the pipeline runs on.

Even if it was running right through their land, tough poo poo, they agreed we could do that.

Is this a troll post? I feel like this is a troll post. I'm not sure what to tell you if you think the original Sioux land claim stopped mysteriously at the western edge of South Dakota, or the tribal diaspora and makeup of the current Native peoples of North Dakota. Perhaps the most hilarious suggestion is that the Natives honor treaties with the U.S. Government despite that long and complicated history.

Liquid Communism
Mar 9, 2004


Out here, everything hurts.




Gobbeldygook posted:

They signed a treaty with us. Some land that used to be theirs according to that treaty no longer is because we took it back by force (there is currently a billion dollar apology sitting in a government bank account for them if they would just accept it), but none of that land includes the land the pipeline runs on.

Even if it was running right through their land, tough poo poo, they agreed we could do that.

This has to be a troll post. You've way overplayed your hand.

Gobbeldygook
May 13, 2009
Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

Hella Paunchy posted:

That's like robbing someone at gunpoint and then saying they gave you their wallet as a gift. "But officer, it isn't stealing, he said I could have it!!"
No, it's what happens when you are the weaker party. The stronger party gets to dictate the terms. Sometimes you don't like the terms. Thems the breaks.

Goodpancakes posted:

Is this a troll post? I feel like this is a troll post. I'm not sure what to tell you if you think the original Sioux land claim stopped mysteriously at the western edge of South Dakota, or the tribal diaspora and makeup of the current Native peoples of North Dakota. Perhaps the most hilarious suggestion is that the Natives honor treaties with the U.S. Government despite that long and complicated history.
1. No, it isn't. I am utterly sincere in my belief that if they want to invoke the treaties when it's good for them, they need to abide by the parts they don't like. That means if we wanted to run a twelve lane NAFTA superhighway right through the Standing Rock Reservation, we could and they would be entitled to payment for the land taken.
2. This is the same justification China uses for staking territorial claims on all of its neighbors. Do you think it's right when China does it?
3. So we have to honor treaties whenever doing so would benefit Native Americans (e.g. they have a right to hunt and fish on land that isn't theirs) but they are not required to abide by the terms of the treaty except when they want to. Are you actually reading what you type?

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

Gobbeldygook posted:

3. So we have to honor treaties whenever doing so would benefit Native Americans (e.g. they have a right to hunt and fish on land that isn't theirs) but they are not required to abide by the terms of the treaty except when they want to. Are you actually reading what you type?

Turnabout is fair play.

Dr. Fraiser Chain
May 18, 2004

Redlining my shit posting machine


Gobbeldygook posted:

1. No, it isn't. I am utterly sincere in my belief that if they want to invoke the treaties when it's good for them, they need to abide by the parts they don't like. That means if we wanted to run a twelve lane NAFTA superhighway right through the Standing Rock Reservation, we could and they would be entitled to payment for the land taken.
2. This is the same justification China uses for staking territorial claims on all of its neighbors. Do you think it's right when China does it?
3. So we have to honor treaties whenever doing so would benefit Native Americans (e.g. they have a right to hunt and fish on land that isn't theirs) but they are not required to abide by the terms of the treaty except when they want to. Are you actually reading what you type?

*US governments long sordid history of breaking every treaty signed with the Natives*

:psyduck:

Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011

Goodpancakes posted:

I'm not sure what to tell you if you think the original Sioux land claim stopped mysteriously at the western edge of South Dakota, or the tribal diaspora and makeup of the current Native peoples of North Dakota.
If you're taking the expansive view that all land where the buffalo once roamed belonged to Native Americans, it begs the question of why they should get veto over this particular infrastructure project, and not every other one in the Great Plains. If you're taking the more narrow view that they had an articulated property right, which the Treaty of Ft. Laramie has been cited several times in support of, the land that the pipeline is built on is north of both their historic and current territorial claims.

CommieGIR posted:

Because it never started.
Do you realize how nonsensical it is to say, "huh, why did the local authorities react differently to people objecting during the planning phase and people attempting to physically block construction under way?"

CommieGIR
Aug 22, 2006

The blue glow is a feature, not a bug


Pillbug

Gobbeldygook posted:

No, it's what happens when you are the weaker party. The stronger party gets to dictate the terms. Sometimes you don't like the terms. Thems the breaks.

Just stop. Seriously. Stop. This makes you look like an rear end in a top hat, because the Native Americans have literally been had genocide conducted against them under terms like this.

Might makes right is bullshit. Just because Might will probably get its way does not make it 'Right'.

Gobbeldygook posted:

1. No, it isn't. I am utterly sincere in my belief that if they want to invoke the treaties when it's good for them, they need to abide by the parts they don't like. That means if we wanted to run a twelve lane NAFTA superhighway right through the Standing Rock Reservation, we could and they would be entitled to payment for the land taken.
2. This is the same justification China uses for staking territorial claims on all of its neighbors. Do you think it's right when China does it?
3. So we have to honor treaties whenever doing so would benefit Native Americans (e.g. they have a right to hunt and fish on land that isn't theirs) but they are not required to abide by the terms of the treaty except when they want to. Are you actually reading what you type?

Holy loving poo poo, where's the growing giant Ironicat when you need it.
1. The number of times we have literally bent Native Americans over the barrel and hosed them while fully ignoring the treaties is immeasurable.
2. China is the stronger party, and its not right when they do it either.
3. When have we honored treaties with the Native Americans. Be serious now.

Dead Reckoning posted:

Do you realize how nonsensical it is to say, "huh, why did the local authorities react differently to people objecting during the planning phase and people attempting to physically block construction under way?"

:ironicat:

CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 04:51 on Nov 4, 2016

Dr. Fraiser Chain
May 18, 2004

Redlining my shit posting machine


Dead Reckoning posted:

If you're taking the expansive view that all land where the buffalo once roamed belonged to Native Americans, it begs the question of why they should get veto over this particular infrastructure project, and not every other one in the Great Plains. If you're taking the more narrow view that they had an articulated property right, which the Treaty of Ft. Laramie has been cited several times in support of, the land that the pipeline is built on is north of both their historic and current territorial claims.
Do you realize how nonsensical it is to say, "huh, why did the local authorities react differently to people objecting during the planning phase and people attempting to physically block construction under way?"

It is not an expansive view of all land where the buffalo roamed, nor is the Ft Laramie treaty an accurate depiction of the "territorial claims" of the Lakota. To suggest that is so is to strictly adopt wholesale the Western historians view.

Samog
Dec 13, 2006
At least I'm not an 07.

Liquid Communism posted:

This has to be a troll post. You've way overplayed your hand.

he did that back on page 4 when he made a "precious bodily fluids" joke about water supply safety concerns

negromancer
Aug 20, 2014

by FactsAreUseless
Good to see the "might white makes right" poster shut the gently caress down before I returned.

Good job everyone.

I Killed GBS
Jun 2, 2011

by Lowtax

Dead Reckoning posted:

If you're taking the expansive view that all land where the buffalo once roamed belonged to Native Americans

This is literally true, it's not an "expansive" view

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011
Hey guys

Why do you think the Standing Rock distrust the Army Corps of Engineers?

Do you think it might have to do with when the Army Corps of Engineers flooded their land in the 60s, destroying entire towns and sacred sites

http://www.msnbc.com/interactives/geography-of-poverty/nw.html

I'm not going to quote any of this, read the whole thing it's appalling

CommieGIR
Aug 22, 2006

The blue glow is a feature, not a bug


Pillbug

Civilized Fishbot posted:

Hey guys

Why do you think the Standing Rock distrust the Army Corps of Engineers?

Do you think it might have to do with when the Army Corps of Engineers flooded their land in the 60s, destroying entire towns and sacred sites

http://www.msnbc.com/interactives/geography-of-poverty/nw.html

I'm not going to quote any of this, read the whole thing it's appalling

I think there was also a couple cases where certain minerals were found on native land and they were "shuffled" around and treaties re-negotiated at gunpoint.

Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011
I don't know what you're getting at. Your original post was, "why did they bring out the MRAPs for the Sioux, but not the white people (of Bismark)?" It seems like the trespassing is the rather obvious distinction.

Goodpancakes posted:

It is not an expansive view of all land where the buffalo roamed, nor is the Ft Laramie treaty an accurate depiction of the "territorial claims" of the Lakota. To suggest that is so is to strictly adopt wholesale the Western historians view.

I Killed GBS posted:

This is literally true, it's not an "expansive" view
Okay, but it's 2016 and the United States is pretty well established, and filled with non-native people, so there has to be some sort of formal delineation of which land the Sioux have a legal claim of ownership to and which land belongs to other people.

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

Dead Reckoning posted:

Okay, but it's 2016 and the United States is pretty well established, and filled with non-native people, so there has to be some sort of formal delineation of which land the Sioux have a legal claim of ownership to and which land belongs to other people.

Yeah but it's fair to dispute that the current legal claim is appropriate and it's fair to protest for the Sioux to have more extensive land rights than they currently do

Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011
Based on what?

negromancer
Aug 20, 2014

by FactsAreUseless

Dead Reckoning posted:

I don't know what you're getting at. Your original post was, "why did they bring out the MRAPs for the Sioux, but not the white people (of Bismark)?" It seems like the trespassing is the rather obvious distinction.


Okay, but it's 2016 and the United States is pretty well established, and filled with non-native people, so there has to be some sort of formal delineation of which land the Sioux have a legal claim of ownership to and which land belongs to other people.

People usually don't have claim to stolen property in court, especially if said property was stolen by force, but when the thief controls the court...

CommieGIR
Aug 22, 2006

The blue glow is a feature, not a bug


Pillbug

Dead Reckoning posted:

I don't know what you're getting at. Your original post was, "why did they bring out the MRAPs for the Sioux, but not the white people (of Bismark)?" It seems like the trespassing is the rather obvious distinction.

Its ironic because you're praising the people of Bismark for restraint over plans while tut-tutting the natives over carried out actions.

Also: They are protesting. Of course they are going to be trespassing.

"Why do all these people we're inconveniencing have to get in our way! Can't they find some non-interference way to protest our actions?" :bahgawd:

Dead Reckoning posted:

Based on what?

South Dakota has a legacy of abusing the Natives. Hell, some of it is ongoing right now.:

quote:

The Lakota made national news when NPR's "Lost Children, Shattered Families investigative story aired. It exposed what many critics consider to be the "kidnapping" of Lakota children from their homes by the state of South Dakota's Department of Social Services (D.S.S.). Lakota activists such as Madonna Thunder Hawk and Chase Iron Eyes, along with the People's Law Project, have alleged that Lakota grandmothers are illegally denied the right to foster their own grandchildren. They are currently working to redirect federal funding away from the state of South Dakota's D.S.S. to new tribal foster care programs. This would be a historic shift away from the state's traditional control over Lakota foster children.

And let's just pretend they didn't push this through as fast as loving possible without much recourse:

quote:

The DOI also expressed concerns about the pipeline's proximity to the tribe's water source:
The routing of a 12- to 30-inch crude oil pipeline in close proximity to and upstream of the Reservation is of serious concern to the Department. When establishing the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's permanent homeland, the U.S. reserved waters of sufficient quantity and quality to serve the purposes of the Reservation. The Department holds more than 800,000 acres of land in trust for the Tribe that could be impacted by a leak or spill. Further, a spill could impact the waters that the Tribe and individual tribal members residing in that area rely upon for drinking and other purposes. We believe that, if the pipeline's current route along the edge of the Reservation remains an option, the potential impact on trust resources in this particular situation necessitates full analysis and disclosure of potential impacts through the preparation of an [Environmental Impact Statement].[19]
In July, the US Army Corps of Engineers approved the water crossing permits for the Dakota Access Pipeline under a “fast track” option called Permit 12.[3] As of September, the U.S Department of Justice had received more than 33,000 petitions to review all permits and order a full review of the project’s environmental effects.

Yeah, why would the Souix be upset? Obviously their concerns have been addressed :rolleyes:

quote:

Alicia Garza, founder of the Black Lives Matter social movement, contrasted the aggressive police action with the treatment of the organizers of a standoff at an Oregon wildlife refuge (acquitted of federal charges on the same day as the police raid of the camp),[67] saying "If you're white, you can occupy federal property ... and get found not guilty. No teargas, no tanks, no rubber bullets ... If you're indigenous and fighting to protect our earth, and the water we depend on to survive, you get tear gassed, media blackouts, tanks and all that."

quote:

On September 22, 2016, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, a United Nations expert on the rights of indigenous peoples, admonished the U.S., saying, "The tribe was denied access to information and excluded from consultations at the planning stage of the project, and environmental assessments failed to disclose the presence and proximity of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation."

CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 05:11 on Nov 4, 2016

Dr. Fraiser Chain
May 18, 2004

Redlining my shit posting machine


Dead Reckoning posted:

Okay, but it's 2016 and the United States is pretty well established, and filled with non-native people, so there has to be some sort of formal delineation of which land the Sioux have a legal claim of ownership to and which land belongs to other people.

Yeah, and weirdly that is an amorphous delineation dependent upon the whims of the US Government. You can look back to the Ft. Laramie treaty where they were promised the Black Hills of South Dakota, later discovered gold there, and now we carved our president's into their sacred mountains.

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

Dead Reckoning posted:

Based on what?

Based on the fact that the only reason that they don't have more land is that the US government carried out a program of genocide against them to seize that land

The Standing Rock don't want to own part of the Vegas Strip, they want some administrative power over some acres that directly border their own, acres they say contain priceless spiritual sites and relics, acres that were literally stolen from them as a critical component of centuries of organized slaughter and the attempted wholesale destruction of their culture and way of life

Regretting/criticizing that genocide, without listening to the Standing Rock on their terms and working to return at least some power over the land to them, is like mugging someone for their wallet, apologizing, and then keeping the wallet and using the money to buy a steak dinner for yourself while they watch

Gobbeldygook
May 13, 2009
Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

CommieGIR posted:

Holy loving poo poo, where's the growing giant Ironicat when you need it.
1. The number of times we have literally bent Native Americans over the barrel and hosed them while fully ignoring the treaties is immeasurable.
2. China is the stronger party, and its not right when they do it either.
3. When have we honored treaties with the Native Americans. Be serious now.
1. That we were lovely to them in the past does not mean we are obligated to let them do whatever they want now. We are doing better. For example, the Indian Health Service is a functional fully socialized healthcare system that is only available to Native Americans. It's not funded as well as it should be, but it exists. The pipeline's planned route was diverted over 100 times in North Dakota alone just to appease Native Americans. We give Iceland poo poo for diverting construction over elves but somehow it's normal that we divert construction for Native American's belief in magical rock formations.

2. I don't know if you got the point of the China comparison. "This used to be China at some point in the past, therefore it is NOW China!" is no different from "This used to be Sioux land at some point in the past, therefore it is NOW Sioux!".That the Native Americans are incapable of reclaiming their territory is immaterial.

3. There's a $1.3 billion apology check for taking the Black Hills from them in violation of the treaty waiting for the Sioux if they would just accept it. We're being nicer.

Civilized Fishbot posted:

Yeah but it's fair to dispute that the current legal claim is appropriate and it's fair to protest for the Sioux to have more extensive land rights than they currently do
Native Americans are 2% of the population but 4.5% of our land is set aside for reservations. In the specific case of the Standing Rock Sioux, currently a population of 8,250 people occupies 3,571.9 square miles of land for a population density of 2.3 people per square mile. Why do you think giving them even more land to not live on would help them in any way? It is my understanding that they live like most destitute people in America in trailer parks and such, but I'm open to evidence that they are actually modern hunter-gatherers in need of more territory to roam.

CommieGIR
Aug 22, 2006

The blue glow is a feature, not a bug


Pillbug

Gobbeldygook posted:

1. That we were lovely to them in the past does not mean we are obligated to let them do whatever they want now. We are doing better. For example, the Indian Health Service is a functional fully socialized healthcare system that is only available to Native Americans. It's not funded as well as it should be, but it exists. The pipeline's planned route was diverted over 100 times in North Dakota alone just to appease Native Americans. We give Iceland poo poo for diverting construction over elves but somehow it's normal that we divert construction for Native American's belief in magical rock formations.

2. I don't know if you got the point of the China comparison. "This used to be China at some point in the past, therefore it is NOW China!" is no different from "This used to be Sioux land at some point in the past, therefore it is NOW Sioux!".That the Native Americans are incapable of reclaiming their territory is immaterial.

3. There's a $1.3 billion apology check for taking the Black Hills from them in violation of the treaty waiting for the Sioux if they would just accept it. We're being nicer.

Native Americans are 2% of the population but 4.5% of our land is set aside for reservations. In the specific case of the Standing Rock Sioux, currently a population of 8,250 people occupies 3,571.9 square miles of land for a population density of 2.3 people per square mile. Why do you think giving them even more land to not live on would help them in any way? It is my understanding that they live like most destitute people in America in trailer parks and such, but I'm open to evidence that they are actually modern hunter-gatherers in need of more territory to roam.

You're either a troll or you are incredibly dense.

DeusExMachinima
Sep 2, 2012

:siren:This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!:siren:

Put this loser on ignore immediately!

Civilized Fishbot posted:

they want some administrative power over some acres that directly border their own, acres they say contain priceless spiritual sites and relics

For like the third or fourth time I will point out that almost all the construction on the pipeline is already done except for the river crossing. Any sacred sites the Standing Rock leadership could've pointed out in the 2+ years the Corps tried to get ahold of them are sites that are already hosed because they've already been graded, bulldozed, etc.

coyo7e posted:

At the very beginning, before it ever even gets to your precious 1% figure, we have this caveat: "About 67% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and petroleum)." So it's cool because only 1% percent of power on the grid is literally provided by burning petrofuels, so gently caress it we need to pump more oil to provide more power to the commercial sector instead of providing them with a reason to not waste so much energy.


Considering that this is a discussion about oil pipelines yeah sure that 1% figure is the relevant part. If you want to drag coal into it, I absolutely agree with should be running like 90% or more of our power grid on nuclear power ASAP.

quote:

Cars don't exist. Gotcha. Way to dodge the point by sperging on a tangent.

What the gently caress are you even talking about? I explicitly mentioned things like cars and planes as being the primary consumers of petrofuels that aren't going away any time soon. There is no alternative to oil for these applications until someone comes up with a something else that has a similar energy density.

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

Gobbeldygook posted:

1. That we were lovely to them in the past does not mean we are obligated to let them do whatever they want now. We are doing better. For example, the Indian Health Service is a functional fully socialized healthcare system that is only available to Native Americans. It's not funded as well as it should be, but it exists. The pipeline's planned route was diverted over 100 times in North Dakota alone just to appease Native Americans. We give Iceland poo poo for diverting construction over elves but somehow it's normal that we divert construction for Native American's belief in magical rock formations.

2. I don't know if you got the point of the China comparison. "This used to be China at some point in the past, therefore it is NOW China!" is no different from "This used to be Sioux land at some point in the past, therefore it is NOW Sioux!".That the Native Americans are incapable of reclaiming their territory is immaterial.

3. There's a $1.3 billion apology check for taking the Black Hills from them in violation of the treaty waiting for the Sioux if they would just accept it. We're being nicer.

Native Americans are 2% of the population but 4.5% of our land is set aside for reservations. In the specific case of the Standing Rock Sioux, currently a population of 8,250 people occupies 3,571.9 square miles of land for a population density of 2.3 people per square mile. Why do you think giving them even more land to not live on would help them in any way? It is my understanding that they live like most destitute people in America in trailer parks and such, but I'm open to evidence that they are actually modern hunter-gatherers in need of more territory to roam.

Gobbledygook please read this short play it is an analogy for the present situation

MUGGER: Give me your wallet or I'll shoot you to death
GUY: Please don't, that has all my money and credit cards and irreplaceable pictures of my family that mean the world to me
MUGGER shoots GUY in leg
GUY: Holy poo poo
MUGGER: Give me your wallet or I'll shoot you to death
GUY: OK
Time passes
MUGGER: Hey I'm sorry I took your wallet, it was a terrible moral error
GUY: You know what, it's fine, just please give me back the wallet
MUGGER: No it's my wallet now
GUY: What
MUGGER: But I'll give you some cash so we can say that you sold me the wallet fair and square
GUY: No, I didn't sell you my wallet, you stole it, give it back
MUGGER: No
GUY: Can I at least have those pictures of my family
MUGGER: Don't be so sentimental
GUY: ...
MUGGER: I think I'm gonna wipe my rear end with these photos of your family. I can do that because they're mine now
GUY: Please don't
MUGGER: They're my pictures, prove to me that they have sentimental value to you and I'll consider not wiping my rear end with them
GUY: I don't have to prove poo poo to you rear end in a top hat, those are my photos, not yours, give me my wallet
MUGGER wipes rear end with pictures of GUY'S family
GOBLEDEGOOK: The real problem here is that the guy didn't take the cash

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 05:26 on Nov 4, 2016

CommieGIR
Aug 22, 2006

The blue glow is a feature, not a bug


Pillbug
The best part of this conversation is how its not on their land.

.....no, its not. Its just 10 miles outside their land on a river they depend on for...well, nearly every source of water.

Its not like they are going across the state and raising an objection to it being built 500 miles away. Its only 10 miles away. Just 10.

bad news bareback
Jan 16, 2009

CommieGIR posted:

The best part of this conversation is how its not on their land.

.....no, its not. Its just 10 miles outside their land on a river they depend on for...well, nearly every source of water.

Its not like they are going across the state and raising an objection to it being built 500 miles away. Its only 10 miles away. Just 10.

lol the water isn't on their land water doesn't just MOVE

Gobbeldygook
May 13, 2009
Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

Civilized Fishbot posted:

Gobbledygook please read this short play it is an analogy for the present situation
A truly beautiful story.

CommieGIR posted:

The best part of this conversation is how its not on their land.

.....no, its not. Its just 10 miles outside their land on a river they depend on for...well, nearly every source of water.

Its not like they are going across the state and raising an objection to it being built 500 miles away. Its only 10 miles away. Just 10.
It's just 40 miles from Bismarck to the Sioux reservation. Does the tribes claim on the river also extend just 40 miles upstream? Where does their claim on land that isn't their land end?

Civilized Fishbot
Apr 3, 2011

Gobbeldygook posted:

A truly beautiful story.

Thank you did you understand the moral?

The moral is that the practitioners and profiteers of a genocide should not be able to dictate the terms of reparations to the victims, while you seem to believe that the Sioux are acting like spoiled brats for wanting to exercise control over more of the land that was taken from them

negromancer
Aug 20, 2014

by FactsAreUseless

Gobbeldygook posted:

A truly beautiful story.

It's just 40 miles from Bismarck to the Sioux reservation. Does the tribes claim on the river also extend just 40 miles upstream? Where does their claim on land that isn't their land end?

They could claim all the goddamn land for 100 miles and not be wrong in doing so, considering a bunch of genocidal white people stole it.

Liquid Communism
Mar 9, 2004


Out here, everything hurts.




poo poo, it's almost like, in living memory, the Corps of Engineers flooded one of the most resource-dense parts of the reservation because they wanted to put a lake there.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

negromancer
Aug 20, 2014

by FactsAreUseless

Liquid Communism posted:

poo poo, it's almost like, in living memory, the Corps of Engineers flooded one of the most resource-dense parts of the reservation because they wanted to put a lake there.

It's almost like it happened in our parents lifetime or something...weird right?

  • Locked thread